brian0918

Would you agree that whether or not one considers something money is demonstrated by whether or not one uses it as money? It is not a claim to hypocrisy, but a claim as to how to properly evaluate one's actions in comparison to his beliefs. People can genuinely believe that they consider X to be money, but their actions may indicate otherwise. That doesn't necessarily imply hypocrisy or evasion on their part - more likely lack of understanding, which is fine.

The rising price in dollars doesn't really indicate whether its demand is increasing as money, or due to speculation (i.e., intent to sell in the future for a profit in dollars). A better indication of its increased demand as money would be to measure its actual utility as money, by looking at who will accept it in trade for goods. Have there been any measures of the progress that has been made in that regard?

I have seen Stefan repeatedly tout the fact that Bitcoin recently skyrocketed in terms of dollar price. Playing devil's advocate, how would you respond to this argument: This same argument was presented to me in regard to gold, and I have come to accept its validity. Of course, it is a comforting argument to accept when the price of gold in dollars is plummeting. So I want to be sure that the argument is truly valid, and not just a comfortable delusion.

In Stefan's latest video he makes an interesting argument that I haven't heard before, namely that folks who use the poor in their appeals for more government power and entitlements only do so because they know it will resonate with the public, which shows that the public, if left free, would be very charitable to the impoverished. And we can see that even in our current society, charity is commonplace. I like to think that if you examine even the simplest of (bad) arguments, you should be able to find a self-refuting premise (i.e. a contradiction), and that's what I always try to look for. So this struck me as a powerful rebuttal. Are there any podcasts or essays that elaborate on this specific point in more detail?

Knowledge cannot be gained by any other method than reason. There are no shortcuts. Your rational faculty must be exercised to integrate the facts of reality. Psychedelic drugs interfere with your brain's ability to process reality, and have the potential to leave a permanent detrimental effect on your brain's functionality. There can be no benefit to it, and there is the potential for permanent harm, so it should be avoided.

Thanks. I don't have the full argument to review from ARI, but this has been clarifying for me.

The concept of rights, and property rights in particular, are a component of political philosophy. Property rights are a necessity of living in society. You would not need property rights on a desert island. Political philosophy is built on morality (which in turn is built on metaphysics and epistemology). First you determine your nature, then from that you determine how to act to survive according to your nature, and then from that you determine how to act in a society. To call something "property" is to ascribe to it a particular high-level concept. The moon is is a finite resource, but is not property. Natural resources by themselves do not become "property" until humans are involved, and only when they are interacting in a social system. By attempting to define property as those finite resources in the world, you are putting the cart before the horse. To derive property rights from "first principles" means to build it on a moral foundation.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it seems to me that much of the hatred for profit comes from a lack of understanding of what price is, how it is determined, and what profit is. The naive individual can look at a price tag and imagine, "if only they didn't get a profit, the price would be lower, and I would get it for cheaper!" They see the product as having some sort of inherent, objective price, and see the store as overcharging for the sake of a profit. But the product does not have an inherent price - rather the price is determined by what the market is willing to bear. I think of this as an attempt to divorce the concept of price from reality - i.e., from the capability of the seller to sustain and grow his business, fulfill his own values and happiness, in order to consider the business a worthwhile endeavor. Business owners don't run the business as an end in itself, but as a means to their own happiness, which is facilitated by gaining a profit on the trade. With the profit motive, the business would not exist, and there would be no trade. Any attempt to circumvent this will end in failure, as it is an attempt to circumvent human nature.

Maybe this isn't the intended focus of your question, and if so, I apologize. But in case it is useful to you, here goes: The way Rand puts it, you must first make the choice - whether explicitly or implicitly - to live. That basic choice is an amoral one. It is not until you have made that choice that you have set the condition for all future actions. "If I want to live, then I ought to do X, Y, Z." The "is" in this case is a living organism, which must constantly act in a certain way to maintain its existence. For the organism to continue to be, it ought to act in a certain way. There is no leap from "is" to "ought" for a rock, which cannot act and does not need to in order to maintain its existence, let alone the fact that it has no mental faculty with which to form concepts such as "is" or "ought". This is why Rand says, "I am, therefore I'll think."

I just listened to this podcast, but unfortunately didn't hear any examination of first principles. Stefan doesn't even define "property", nor show how or why the concept arises in the first place. How are we supposed to decide whether the attributes that IP and physical property share in common are sufficient reason to consider IP to be valid property, if this is not even considered or discussed? He gives some examples of how the two are not identical, which one may or may not agree with, but that doesn't answer whether or not it is "valid" property. Instead we are presented with a kind of "weighing" of attributes that are the same or different between IP and physical property. The majority of the discussion seems to focus on differentiating IP from physical property by the degree of effort necessary to copy the property, or by the way in which our current legal system handles them (whether properly or not). Does he have any other podcasts or writings that start at more fundamental levels - e.g. morality - to derive the basis for what is considered true "property", in order to decide whether or not IP qualifies?

Be sure to regularly share family photos that she can review and decide for herself whether you're raising a wild child. Show by example.

There has been this trend for quite a while to spread videos of little girls reuniting with their military dads. The reunions are usually staged, with several onlookers, and you can hear all the laughing/crying in the background. I used to react the same way as them to these videos, but now I see them a bit differently. Example: https://vine.co/v/hdhqO66tLqw The poor girl was clearly suffering from his absence. And for what did she suffer? Was it a worthy end? And for what purpose did they stage this event and film it? What do others think of this trend? What is fueling it? What do you think about the desire to stage these sorts of events, so that everyone can get in on experiencing the child's emotional overload?

Magnus - thanks, that was very clarifying, and it's great to see how it comes about naturally from broader principles. Related topic: has Stefan ever discussed or rebutted the perspective I have seen from ARI in the past, which asserts that since adult children have received value from their parents (assuming that's true), they have a moral responsibility to give value in return by taking care of them in old age? I don't think they were including abusive relationships in that category, though they may not accept Stefan's criteria for what constitutes abusive parenting. I guess I am just wondering if he would agree with them on the general idea of such a moral responsibility (on the basis of not accepting value without giving value in return), even if he disagrees on the specifics, e.g. who is considered a good parent.

Thank you both for the great responses - this has given me a lot to think about. Does Stefan have a specific podcast where he examines this topic in a structured way, rather than through listener questions? Some thoughts that come to mind from Extraordinary_rendition's response: what if you believe your worst childhood problems came more from your public school experiences (among peers) than from your parents? In addition, your family was poor, your parents worked all day, and there was no way they could get you to a better school? I realize I am making some assumptions about the parents' options, and may be trying to excuse their (in)action. At the end of the day would you still lay full blame on the parents?

The specific segments, yes. I agree he does recommend therapy. I just wanted to know what purpose/benefit there was to putting the initial blame on the parents, from the perspective of helping the individual here and now. In my own case, I have started listening to his podcasts, hoping to get more insight about how to better myself, but maybe that's outside the scope of a phone conversation. I didn't decide to "introduce myself to the community". I decided to ask questions that I have been thinking about. I alluded to my reasons in my last post - I still have somewhat of a relationship with my parents, and do not see what benefit I could gain from cutting all ties to them, or telling their current selves that they are to blame for their past mistakes in my childhood. Since this seems to be continually brought up by Stefan in his podcasts, I was hoping to find out *why* it was important, and what sort of positive benefit this acknowledgment might have.

I was wondering - I've started listening to Stefan's podcasts, and in every one involving personal problems, he always traces it back to abusive parenting years earlier - and that's it. Some questions I have from observing this: 1. What is the purpose of explicitly placing this blame? 2. Assuming that the individual acknowledges that his/her parents made bad choices years ago - how does that therapeutically benefit the individual here and now? Going further, I have seen recommendations that adult children break all ties with their parents. What is the purpose of this? Is consideration given as to whether the parent acknowledges past mistakes, or to the parents' own poor upbringing? What benefit does it give to the adult child? If you are surrounded by people who accept spanking/verbally abusing children, why specifically focus on cutting all ties to your parents in particular, if they are no longer verbally/physically harming you? For me, I don't see the point in dwelling on the past. Certainly, even if I openly accept that my parents were to blame for my various "idiosyncrasies" today, that would in no way alleviate them - not in the slightest.